In the debate over the Iraq war, a new fragment of conventional wisdom has fixed itself in the minds of mainstream politicians and commentators: whether or not it was right to go to war, we are told on all sides, the US must now succeed in achieving its aims.

In the words of John Kerry, "Americans differ about whether and how we should have gone to war, but it would be unthinkable now for us to retreat in disarray and leave behind a society deep in strife and dominated by radicals."

Or, as Senator Richard Lugar has said, "We are in Iraq and so we're going to have to bring stability." Or, as Senator Joseph Biden, among so many others, has said, as if to put an end to all discussion, "Failure is not an option."

The argument is an irritating one for those of us who opposed the war, suggesting, as it does, that we must now sign up for the project ("stay the course") because the very mistake we warned against was made.

But the problems are more serious than annoyance. Of course, no one wants to see anarchy or repression in Iraq or any other country. But what can it mean to say that failure is not an option? Has the decision to go to war exhausted our powers of thought and will? Must we surrender now to fate?

"Failure" is, in truth, never an "option". The exercise of an option is a voluntary act; but failure is forced upon you by events. It is what happens when your options run out. To rule out failure is not a policy but a wish - and a wish, indeed, for omnipotence.

Yet no one, not even the world's sole superpower, is omnipotent. To imagine otherwise is to set yourself up for a fall even bigger than the failure you imagine you are ruling out.

And so decisions must still be made. It's true that we opponents of the war cannot simply say (as we might like to do), "Please roll history back to March of 2003 and make your disastrous war unhappen."

It's also true that when the US overthrew the Iraqi government it took on new responsibilities. The strongest argument for staying in Iraq is that the US, having taken over the country, owes its people a better future. But acknowledgement of such a responsibility is only the beginning, not the end, of an argument.

To meet a responsibility to someone, you must have something on offer that they want. Certainly, the people of Iraq want electricity, running water and other material assistance. The US should supply it.

Perhaps - it's hard to find out - they also want democracy. But democracy cannot be shipped to Iraq on a tanker. It is a home-grown construct that must flow from the will of the people involved. The expression of that will is, in fact, what democracy is.

But today the US seeks to impose a government on Iraq in the teeth of an increasingly powerful popular opposition. The result of this policy can be seen in the shameful attacks from the air on the cordoned-off city of Falluja, which have caused hundreds of casualties.

The more the US tries to force what it insists on calling democracy on Iraq, the more the people of Iraq will hate the US and even, perhaps, the name of democracy. There is no definition of an obligation that includes attacking the supposed beneficiaries' cities with F-16s and AC-130 gunships.

President Bush said recently of the Iraqis, "It's going to take a while for them to understand what freedom is all about." Hachim Hassani, a representative of the Iraqi Islamic party, a leading Sunni Muslim group on the so-called governing council, might have been answering him when he commented to the Los Angeles Times, "The Iraqi people now equate democracy with bloodshed."

Under these circumstances, staying the course cannot benefit Iraq. On the contrary, each additional day that American troops continue to fight in Iraq can only compound the eventual price of the original mistake. More lives, American and Iraqi, will be lost; the society will be disorganised and pulverised; and any chances for a better future will be reduced, not fostered.

There are still many things the US can do for the people of Iraq. Continued economic assistance is one. Another is to help international organisations assist (but only to whatever degree is wanted by the local people) in the transition to a new political order.

But all combat operations should cease immediately, and then, on a fixed and announced timetable, the American forces should withdraw from the country. In short, the US, working with others, should give Iraqis their best chance to succeed in their own efforts to create their own future.

According to the most recent Times/CBS poll, the public, by a margin of 48% to 46%, has decided, with no encouragement from either of the two major-party presidential candidates or from most media commentators, that the war was a mistake.

46% have decided that the American troops should be withdrawn. They are right. The United States should never have invaded Iraq. Now it should leave.

· Jonathan Schell is a Harold Willens Peace Fellow at the Nation Institute, and the author of The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People (Metropolitan).

Noam Chomsky: Transfer real sovereignty

Occupying armies have responsibilities, not rights. Their primary responsibility is to withdraw as quickly and expeditiously as possible, in a manner determined by the occupied population.

It follows that the orders issued by Proconsul Bremer are illegitimate and should be rescinded, including those designed to place the economy effectively in the hands of western (mostly US) banks and multinational companies, and the 15% flat tax which, apart from its injustice, bars the way to desperately needed social spending and reconstruction.

Without economic sovereignty, prospects for healthy development are slight, and political independence verges on formality.

It also follows that Washington should end the machinations to ensure its long-term military presence and control of Iraqi security forces in defiance of the will of Iraqis, who call for Iraqis to control security, according to western-run polls.

These record only minuscule support for the occupying military forces and their civil counterparts (the CPA) or the US-appointed governing council.

With a decision, however reluctant, to transfer authentic sovereignty to Iraqis - not just the traditional facade for Great Power domination - there will be no justification for the huge diplomatic mission, apparently the world's largest, announced by the occupiers.

Such steps entail abandonment of plans to establish the first secure military bases in a client state at the heart of the world's major energy reserves - a powerful lever of world control, as has been understood for 60 years, a means to subordinate the region more fully to US interests and the prime motive for the invasion, according to western polls in Baghdad.

Some of those polled agreed with articulate western opinion that the goal was to establish democracy (1%) or to help Iraqis (5%).

A large majority of Americans believe that the UN, not the US, should take the lead in working with Iraqis to transfer authentic sovereignty as well as in economic reconstruction and maintaining civic order.

That is a sensible stand, if Iraqis agree, as seems likely, though the general assembly, less directly controlled by the invaders, is preferable to the security council as the responsible transitional authority.

Reconstruction should be in the hands of Iraqis, not delayed as a means of controlling them, as Washington has indicated.

Reparations - not just aid - should be provided by those responsible for devastating Iraqi civilian society by cruel sanctions and military actions, and - together with other criminal states - for supporting Saddam Hussein through his worst atrocities and beyond. That is the minimum that honesty requires.

· Noam Chomsky's most recent books are: A New Generation Draws the Line; New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind; 9-11; Understanding Power; On Nature and Language; The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?; Chomsky on Democracy and Education; Middle East Illusions; and Hegemony or Survival.

Howard Zinn: Let the UN broker power

Any "practical" approach to the situation in Iraq, any prescription for what to do now, must start with the understanding that the present US military occupation is morally unacceptable.

Amnesty International, a year after the invasion, reported: "Scores of unarmed people have been killed due to excessive or unnecessary use of lethal force by coalition forces during public demonstrations, at checkpoints and in house raids.

"Thousands of people have been detained [estimates range from 8,500 to 15,000, often under harsh conditions] and subjected to prolonged and often unacknowledged detention. Many have been tortured or ill treated, and some have died in custody."

The prospect, if the occupation continues, whether by the US or by an international force (as John Kerry seems to be proposing) is of continued suffering and death for both Iraqis and Americans.

The history of military occupations of third world countries is that they bring neither democracy nor security. The laments that "we mustn't cut and run", "we must stay the course", our "reputation" will be imperilled etc are exactly what we heard when, at the start of the Vietnam escalation, some of us called for immediate withdrawal. The result of staying the course was 58,000 Americans and several million Vietnamese dead.

The only rational argument for continuing on the present course is that things will be worse if we leave. In Vietnam, they promised a bloodbath if we left. That did not happen.

It was said that if we did not drop the bomb on Hiroshima, we would have to invade Japan and huge casualties would follow. We know now, and knew then, that this was not true.

The truth is, no one knows what will happen if the US withdraws. We face a choice between the certainty of mayhem if we stay and the uncertainty of what will follow if we leave.

What would be a reasonably good scenario to accompany our departure? The UN should arrange, as US forces leave, for an international group of peacekeepers and negotiators from the Arab countries to bring together Shia, Sunnis and Kurds and work out a solution for self governance that would give all three groups a share in political power.

Simultaneously, the UN should arrange for shipments of food and medicine, from the United States and other countries, as well as a corps of engineers to begin the reconstruction of the country.

The one thing to be avoided is for the US, which destroyed Iraq and caused perhaps 1 million deaths through two invasions and 10 years of sanctions, to play any leading role in the future of that country. In that case, terrorism would surely flourish.

It is for the US to withdraw from Iraq. It is for the international community, particularly the Arab world, to try to reconstruct a nation at peace. That gives the Iraqi people a chance. Continued US occupation gives them no chance.

· Howard Zinn is the author of Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawal and A People's History of the United States.

William R Polk: UN trusteeship is the best answer

Lakhdar Brahimi's proposals are interesting, perhaps even hopeful, but they pose almost as many problems as they address.

The Shia are worried that he is attempting to undercut their claims on power and, after the siege of Falluja, the Sunnis will probably worry that he is, inadvertently or not, acting as a cover for American attempts to hang on to control. They have reason to worry.

The world press has reported that very little real authority will be handed over to the Iraqis or the UN. If the UN is to be of any value in pacifying Iraq, it cannot simply be used by the US as a fig leaf. It must show Iraqis that it is truly independent, and so a worthwhile step forward for them.

For all that, some form of UN trusteeship appears to be the best answer now available. It seems to me that the best form of trusteeship is minimal, not much more than attempting to keep order. Anything more will certainly raise fears in Iraq that outsiders - the United States or the UN - really intend to stay.

That will create the only unity there now is in Iraq - hostility to foreigners.

· William R Polk was responsible for planning Middle Eastern policy at the State Department between 1961 and 1965 and then became a University of Chicago professor of history. His books include The United States and the Arab World and The Elusive Peace.

This is the first of three pieces. The other two will be published on Thursday and Friday. Tomorrow: Sherle R Schwenninger, Phyllis Bennis and Mansour Farhang

About this article

How can America get out of Iraq?

This article was published on
the Guardian website
at 09.46 EDT on Wednesday 12 May 2004.
It was last modified at 12.06 EDT on Monday 6 October 2014.
It was first published at 09.46 EDT on Friday 14 May 2004.